Katie Britt and colleagues introduce legislation to require federal agencies to publish their regulatory guidance on the internet
U.S. Senators Katie Britt and Ron Johnson and 14 of their colleagues reintroduced the Guidance Out of Darkness (GOOD) Act, which requires federal agencies to publish their regulatory guidance on the internet in an easily accessible location. Sponsors claim that the GOOD Act will enhance the transparency of guidance documents issued by government agencies, helping all entities — including small businesses, workers, and households — to comply with regulations. The bill was advanced by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee by voice vote twice and passed the House in 2018. “Sunlight is often the best disinfectant, and that’s exactly what the Biden Administration’s runaway red tape regime needs,” said Sen. Britt. “Unelected federal bureaucrats should not be taking actions that affect hardworking Americans’ lives without robust transparency and the opportunity to hold them publicly accountable. This is a commonsense measure that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle should support.” “As an advocate for transparency and accountability in government, I am proud to reintroduce the Guidance Out of Darkness Act. This bill reduces the regulatory burden placed on small businesses, workers, and households by holding federal agencies accountable,” stated Sen. Johnson. “Increasing transparency and simplifying the regulatory process will further economic growth for all Americans. I look forward to working with my colleagues to advance this bill and provide the American people with the transparency they deserve.” Senators Britt and Johnson were joined on the legislation by Sens. Mike Braun (R-Indiana), Kevin Cramer (R-North Dakota), Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina), James Lankford (R-Oklahoma), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyoming), Rand Paul (R-Kentucky), Rick Scott (R-Florida), Thom Tillis (R-North Carolina), Bill Hagerty (R-Tennessee), Marsha Blackburn (R-Tennessee), and Mitt Romney (R-Utah). “Transparency in government is crucial. That is why I am proud to join Senator Ron Johnson in sponsoring the GOOD Act. People deserve to know just what government agencies are up to, especially when it comes to their hard-earned tax dollars,” said Sen. Scott. “This bill will bring commonsense reform and shed light on how the government operates—which is something we should all support.” “People in Wyoming deserve transparency from the federal government, which is why I’m joining my colleague Senator Ron Johnson in introducing the Guidance Out of Darkness Act,” said Sen. Lummis. “This bill would require federal agencies to post regulations and guidance to the agency website, making it easy for small businesses, workers, and the people of Wyoming to know about the federal regulations that impact their daily lives.” “Unlike other regulatory actions, agency guidance documents are not required to undergo the public notice and comment process. James Madison warned that our laws would be of little use if they can ‘be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes, that no man who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be tomorrow,’” said Sen. Lee. “I’m proud to cosponsor Sen. Johnson’s legislation to reduce the regulatory burden placed on small businesses, workers, and American households and increase transparency for all the entities needed to comply.” Navigating through all of the regulations promulgated by federal agencies and keeping up to date with all of the periodic changes to guidance as well as administrative reinterpretations and changes of previous rules can be very difficult for businesses operating in those regulated agencies. Katie Britt is serving in her first term in the U.S. Senate after her election in November. To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
Terri Sewell votes in favor of Puerto Rico Status Act
On Thursday, Congresswoman Terri Sewell voted in favor of H.R. 8393, the Puerto Rico Status Act. It would allow the residents of Puerto Rico to vote for their political status moving forward. The Puerto Rico Status Act is a compromise between the sponsors of two bills seeking to resolve Puerto Rico’s territorial status: the Puerto Rico Statehood Admissions Act and the Puerto Rico Self-Determination Act. It would provide residents an opportunity to select from three non-territorial, fully self-governing political status options: Statehood, Independence, and Sovereignty in Free Association with the United States. The bill passed the House of Representatives on a vote of 233 to 191. “I’m proud to stand in support of self-determination for the people of Puerto Rico in voting for the Puerto Rico Status Act,” Rep. Sewell stated. “For too long, the residents of Puerto Rico have been denied the opportunity to freely determine their own political status. This bill is about righting that wrong and placing the future of Puerto Rico back into the hands of Puerto Ricans where it belongs.” The Puerto Rico Status Act would: · Authorize a federally sponsored plebiscite to resolve Puerto Rico’s political status. · Specify and define Puerto Rico’s non-territorial status options: Independence, Sovereignty in Free Association with the United States, and Statehood. · Provide for an objective, nonpartisan, federally funded voter education campaign leading up to the vote. · Establish a process and timeline for the U.S. Department of Justice to review the plebiscite voter education materials and plebiscite ballot design. · Authorize necessary funds to carry out an initial plebiscite and, if necessary, a runoff plebiscite. · Describe the transition to and implementation of each status option in sufficient detail for eligible voters in Puerto Rico to make an informed choice about Puerto Rico’s future political status. · Ensure the result of the plebiscite is binding and implement the option that is chosen by a majority of eligible voters in Puerto Rico. Ending what they see as America’s colonial occupation of Puerto Rico is a goal of Progressive Democrats in Congress. “Today, for the first time in our nation’s history, the United States will acknowledge its role as a colonizing force and Puerto Rico’s status as an extended colony,” Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said on the House floor. Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez was born and raised in Puerto Rico. “Congress’ unlimited plenary powers over Puerto Rico is reminiscent of the monarchical powers enjoyed by King George III, against which the founders of the American Republic so bravely fought,” Velazquez said. “If [Alexander] Hamilton and [James]Madison were alive today, they would be shocked to see how the anti-colonial Constitution they drafted in 1787 is currently used to legitimize colonialism in Puerto Rico even 300 years later.” The legislation now moves on to the Senate for its consideration. Sewell was recently re-elected to her seventh term representing Alabama’s Seventh Congressional District. To connect with the author of this story, or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
Bradley Byrne: The absent congress
Bradley Byrne shares his thoughts on congress’ temporary ability to vote while away from the Capitol.
Darryl Paulson: Will Donald Trump be dumped? Part II — The Constitutional debate
In my recent op-ed, I examined the possibility of removing President Donald Trump through the 25th Amendment. That amendment allows for the president to be removed if the vice president and a majority of the cabinet find the president “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.” This option is highly unlikely to succeed. Impeachment is the more likely problem confronting Trump, although the chances of success are minimal at this time. Impeachment and the Constitutional Convention. On July 20, 1787, delegates at the Constitutional Convention raised the issue of impeachment of a sitting president. The debate was heated. Charles Pinckney of South Carolina moved to strike impeachment from the Constitution. Pinckney contended that elections would hold the president accountable. George Mason of Virginia asked, “Shall any man be above Justice?” Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania moved that the impeachable offenses be enumerated and defined. James Madison of Virginia listed possible impeachable offenses. “He might lose his capacity after his appointment. He might pervert his administration into a scheme of peculation or oppression. He might betray his trust to foreign powers.” Many Trump critics see him guilty of the last charge. Pinckney and Rufus King of Massachusetts worried that impeachment would jeopardize the independence of the president. Eldridge Gerry of Massachusetts countered that “A good magistrate will not fear them (Congress). A bad one ought to be kept in fear of them.” The delegates at the Constitutional Convention gave the House the authority to bring articles of impeachment by majority vote. Impeachment, in contrast to the public perception, does not mean removal from office. It only means a majority of the House believes there are grounds for the Senate to hold hearings on whether or not to remove the president from office. General offenses included treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors. Presidential Impeachments. Andrew Johnson, a Democrat who assumed the presidency after the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln, was bitterly distrusted by the Radical Republicans who dominated Congress. Johnson, a Tennessean, was viewed as too sympathetic to the South. Johnson’s problems escalated after Congress passed the Tenure of Office Act in 1867, which required the president to get Senate approval before firing a cabinet officer. Johnson fired Secretary of War Edwin Stanton without seeking Senate approval. The House voted to impeach Johnson. After a three-month trial in the Senate, the Senate fell one vote short of the necessary two-thirds needed to remove the president. The vote was 35 to 19 in favor of removing Johnson, and seven Republicans voted to acquit. Over a century later, President Richard Nixon, who won a landslide victory over Democrat George McGovern in 1972, fell victim to the Watergate scandal. The scandal involved the effort of members of the president’s re-election team to break into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in the Watergate complex. Although Nixon denied any knowledge of the break-in, it later became known that the president had tapes of all the conversations in the Oval Office. The House brought articles of impeachment against the president and the primary charge was obstructing justice. During hearings by the Senate Watergate Committee, a number of Nixon aides gave damning testimony about the president’s involvement. After nine months, President Nixon became the first president to resign rather than face removal by the Senate. On Aug. 9, 1974, Nixon wrote that “I hereby resign the office of President of the United States.” During the Bill Clinton administration, an investigation into Arkansas land dealings by the Clintons while he was governor, ultimately led to his relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. During the Senate hearings on whether to remove the president, his attorneys argued that Clinton was the victim of a partisan attempt to remove him from office for having consensual sex with Lewinsky. However abhorrent his personal conduct, the issue was not an impeachable offense. The public agreed and attacked Republicans for wasting time and money on trying to remove the president. Clinton is the only president to face impeachment and see his personal popularity rise. His approval rating climbed to over 70 percent, and the Senate fell far short of the two-thirds vote necessary to remove him from office. Part III Forthcoming: Will Trump be Dumped? Impeachment ___ Darryl Paulson is Emeritus Professor of Government at the University of South Florida in St. Petersburg specializing in Florida Politics and elections.
Darryl Paulson: Voters don’t understand or like the Electoral College
Here are a few basic facts about the electoral-college system. First, very few voters understand how it works. Second, most voters hate the system. Third, the system is almost impossible to change. Those who drafted the Constitution had little trust in democracy. James Madison, in The Federalist Papers, wrote that unfettered majorities tend toward “tyranny.” John Adams, signer of the Declaration of Independence and second President, noted that “Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy that did not commit suicide.” Reflecting their distrust of democracy, the drafters of the Constitution wanted to create a process where the president would be indirectly selected. Direct election was rejected because they believed that most voters were incapable of making a wise choice. Voters would likely vote for a well-known person, especially one from a voter’s home state. A Committee of Eleven was appointed and they recommended a compromise where each state would appoint presidential electors equal to the number of representatives and senators. The electors would cast a vote for president and vice president. The candidate with the most votes would be president and the candidate with the second highest vote would be vice president. The compromise was accepted and Alexander Hamilton described the electoral-college plan “if the manner of it be not perfect, it is at least excellent.” The compromise worked until the 1800 presidential election when electors cast an equal number of votes for Thomas Jefferson, who the Anti-Federalists wanted to be president and Aaron Burr, who they wanted as vice president. After 36 ballots, the House selected Jefferson as president. The 12th Amendment, adopted in 1804, separated the electoral vote for president and vice president. There is little doubt that Americans hate the Electoral College system and prefer the direct election of the president. The system has allowed the election of four presidents who lost the popular vote, but won the electoral vote. In 1824, Andrew Jackson won the popular vote, but lost when the House selected John Quincy Adams. In 1876, Samuel Tilden won the popular vote by a quarter million votes, but lost the electoral vote to Republican Rutherford B. Hayes. In 1888, Grover Cleveland received more popular votes but lost to Republican Benjamin Harrison. Finally, in 2000, Democrat Al Gore won the popular vote, but lost the election when Florida’s electoral votes were awarded to George W. Bush. Another complaint about the electoral college is that the winner-take-all feature does not reflect the popular will. A candidate with a plurality of the popular vote would win all of a state’s electoral votes in a three or four person race. Critics contend that the system discourages candidates from campaigning in states that they are sure to win or lose. No sense wasting time and money campaigning in those states. Instead, all of the attention is focused on a half-dozen competitive states like Florida and Ohio. If no candidate gets a majority of the electoral votes (270), the election is thrown into the House of Representatives. Each state, regardless of population, gets one vote. The least populated state has one vote; the most populated state gets one vote. If a state delegation’s vote is equally split, they get no vote until the deadlock is broken. Although reforms of the system have been pushed, the likelihood of reform is small. Small states, which have disproportionate power under the plan, are not likely to give up that power to support direct election. Supporters of direct election argue that it is the most democratic, which is precisely why the drafters of the Constitution dismissed it. Supporters also argue that it would force candidates to conduct national campaigns since every vote would matter. Critics of direct election argue that it would create gridlock in close elections. Imagine having to review over 100 million votes in a close election to see if they should be counted or dismissed. Would voters have confidence if a candidate won by a few thousand votes? What does the electoral-college system tell us about 2016. Hillary Clinton is a flawed candidate seeking a third consecutive win for Democrats, something that is difficult to do. However, we know that Republicans are not happy with either Donald Trump or Ted Cruz. The possibility of a contested convention further muddies Republican chances. A look at the electoral-college maps shows that Democrats usually win fewer states than Republicans, but they win the states with large numbers of electoral votes. While the electoral-college map of America looks overwhelmingly red, it is likely the Republicans will end up feeling blue. Larry Sabato, of the University of Virginia, projects that in a Clinton-Trump election, Clinton is likely to win 347 electoral votes to Trump’s 191. If so, an easy Clinton victory means there will be no pressure to reform the electoral-college system. *** Darryl Paulson is Professor Emeritus of Government at USF St. Petersburg.
Martin Dyckman: Refusing to approve Obama nominee could hurt the Party of No in November
Mitch McConnell couldn’t even wait until Justice Antonin Scalia‘s corpse was cold before exploiting his death for partisan politics. The oleaginous majority leader means to keep the seat empty, no matter the likelihood of that paralyzing the sharply divided Supreme Court for a year, on the chance that voters might elect a Republican president to appoint Scalia’s replacement. The people, he said, “should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice.” As Elizabeth Warren promptly reminded him, voters had that choice when they elected President Barack Obama and re-elected him four years ago with a winning margin of nearly 5 million votes. Most Americans understand that short of making or preventing war, the appointment of a Supreme Court justice has the longest-lasting consequences of anything a president does. They have trusted Obama with that responsibility. Twice. But the Party of No has never forgiven him for winning and has treated him with degrees of obstructionism and contempt that were never practiced by Democratic Congresses against Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush. The scheme of keeping Scalia’s seat empty for a year is consistent with the Party of No having shut down the executive branch to try win with extortion what it couldn’t win at the ballot box — the repeal of Obamacare. Belying the current Republican reinvention of history, there has never been a policy of deliberately perpetuating Supreme Court vacancies on the rare occasions when they occur during the last year of a president’s term. Quite the contrary. Some examples: There were only 10 months left in Reagan’s when the Senate unanimously confirmed Justice Anthony Kennedy, as Reagan urged it to do. John Adams had only four months left in his term when he appointed John Marshall to be chief justice in December 1800. That was easily the most consequential appointment ever. Thomas Jefferson, who had defeated Adams, could do nothing but gnash his teeth over the Federalists’ parting shot. Herbert Hoover was in the last year of his term, and facing all-but-certain defeat in the 1932 election, when he successfully nominated Benjamin Cardozo. When President Lyndon Johnson failed to promote Justice Abe Fortas to chief justice, it wasn’t because of timing but because Fortas had woeful ethical problems. There is nothing in the Constitution to require — or authorize — Congress to wait for an intervening election before carrying out any duty other than counting electoral votes. The 27th amendment merely postpones the effective date of any congressional salary increase until after the ensuing election for the House. That was James Madison‘s idea, 202 years before it was finally ratified, on the premise that lawmakers should think twice about giving themselves a pay raise of which the voters might disapprove. Today, there are Republican senators up for re-election who might want to rethink the McConnell scheme to hold the Supreme Court hostage for the next election. Five of the 17 seats the party is defending are in states, including Florida, which Obama carried four years ago. Obama will fulfill his constitutional duty to nominate a justice even if the Republican senators insist on defaulting on their duty to advise and consent. The voters will then have an opportunity to judge the senators. Two of the people said to be on Obama’s shortlist are circuit court of appeals judges whom the Senate confirmed unanimously two and three years ago. One would be the first Indian-American justice. The other is from Iowa and was enthusiastically supported by Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley, chairman of the judiciary committee, who is up for re-election this year. Is Grassley really prepared to stonewall her? Maybe not. He’s now saying he might hold hearings on a nominee although he still thinks the next president should make the appointment. At least the Party of No is making it vividly clear to voters what’s at stake for the Supreme Court — and for the entire concept of equal justice under law — this year. For the first time since Lyndon Johnson’s presidency, a majority of the court might be Democratic appointees. More to the important point, will the new justice be an ideologue like Scalia, or disposed to compromise like Sandra Day O’Connor and David Souter, both of whom were Republicans? They were the last justices who had ever held political office — O’Connor as a legislator and Souter as an attorney general — and the court was richer for that experience. The Supreme Court did its greatest work — Brown v. Board of Education comes to mind — when it valued consensus. It has been at its worst — think Citizens United — when an ideological majority insisted on scoring points that weren’t necessary to resolving the case. The American people want a new justice who will be judicious in every sense of the word. If Obama nominates such a person and the Republicans refuse to confirm him or her, it will be as good a reason as any for voters to reject the Party of No on Nov. 8. *** Martin Dyckman is a retired associate editor of the newspaper formerly known as the St. Petersburg Times. He lives in suburban Asheville, North Carolina.
